RE: Atheist struggling to answer a question i often propose to myself
August 25, 2017 at 11:29 am
(This post was last modified: August 25, 2017 at 11:33 am by Neo-Scholastic.)
(August 25, 2017 at 11:10 am)Whateverist Wrote:(August 25, 2017 at 8:26 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: That seems like a reasonable objection for many naive god concepts. It doesn't apply when the evidence is ubiquitous such as the fact that beings persist in there being despite change or the general observation that causes have regular effects.
Quote:The fact that beings persist isn't an adequate justification for any claim apart from the persistence of beings. Our understanding of what are the necessary conditions for being is far from complete.
By itself, no. It is a reference to Aristotle's successful resolution of the dilemma between Parmenedies and Heraciltus.
(August 25, 2017 at 8:26 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: When someone brings up "who created god?" I can tell either they haven't thought it through or don't understand the argument.
A clean beginning of everything out of a condition of absolute nothing begs the question of where the capacity for that creation is to come from. If there is something else of any kind whatsoever which can erase the nothingness then there never was a pure nothing to begin with. You haven't erased the paradox by positing an agent to transform your 'nothing' into something. Your agent Agent if existent is still something and if we insist on prior causes must be accounted for. If you are content to allow this eternal potential to exist, that is not one wit better than the claim that it is turtles all the way down. I prefer the turtles claim myself because it doesn't falsely claim to have erased the paradox. The paradox remains.
(August 25, 2017 at 10:54 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: As for whether belief in God is necessary, I would say probably not for everyday living and scientific inquires about natural phenomena. However, taking a stand is a necessary condition for the fundamental things that I think really matter in life such as values, meaning, and purpose.
Really? No values. No meaning. No purpose. That sounds like the perspective of a deeply depressed person.
But why even imagine we have any subjective experience at all? Perhaps without god belief we are no more than automatons. Only belief in god lifts a person up into full consciousness. Otherwise we remain merely objects in the experience of those possessed of true subject-hood by virtue of their god belief. Seems pretty far fetched to me.
(August 25, 2017 at 10:54 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: As for whether belief in God is necessary, I would say probably not for everyday living and scientific inquires about natural phenomena. However, taking a stand is a necessary condition for the fundamental things that I think really matter in life such as values, meaning, and purpose.
Really? No values. No meaning. No purpose. That sounds like the perspective of a deeply depressed person.
But why even imagine we have any subjective experience at all? Perhaps without god belief we are no more than automatons. Only belief in god lifts a person up into full consciousness. Otherwise we remain merely objects in the experience of those possessed of true subject-hood by virtue of their god belief. Seems pretty far fetched to me.
I think we are talking about necessary being. Like the first cause argument it is about logical priority not temporal. So there is no issue about one bringing the other into existence at one point in time but rather what sustains existence across all time, i.e. contingent relationships. It was never an origin story which is what the 'who created god?' Objection mistakenly assumes. All that 'out of nothing' stuff is an entirely separate issue.
